have an actual look at the sites nothing to keep around it lol ... those houses next to it currently are already boarded up and the other site is a church haha the whole block is the george street united church .. good luck tearing that one down chris hahaha

have an actual look at the sites nothing to keep around it lol ... those houses next to it currently are already boarded up and the other site is a church haha the whole block is the george street united church .. good luck tearing that one down chris hahaha

but then by having those 2 buildings made special.......you know damn well they will start to want the ones around it kept the same way.

If there is an area to be no height restrictions or very minimal it has to include all buildings so no more damn piece meal decisions can be made.

And on that note....I am off to watch Mrs. Brown's Boys then some Downton Abbey!

You could easily say these buildings cannot be torn down, unless it is not feasible at all to keep them standing, but have no height limits in and around these buildings. Most people in this city do not want to see heritage buildings torn down for no reason, we need to have a mix of developments.

As well if we have height minimums it's going to be harder for retail, restaurants, and convenience stores to establish in the area.

You could easily say these buildings cannot be torn down, unless it is not feasible at all to keep them standing, but have no height limits in and around these buildings. Most people in this city do not want to see heritage buildings torn down for no reason, we need to have a mix of developments.

As well if we have height minimums it's going to be harder for retail, restaurants, and convenience stores to establish in the area.

It's not a very large area. just up the road there are tonnes of ma and pa restaurants and convenience stores etc., I think it is the solution to larger developments that could have retail on the bottom floors and restaurants etc.

Good idea, it's going all the way, maybe too far, in the right direction, because to say NO height restrictions at all may not be entirely reasonable. There is always some reasonable regulation even in cities like New York, Montreal, Vancouver, etc. for various reasons. However, height is often determined both by the market and what is practical to build in a certain context. So, a height limit of 65, 80, or even 100 metres might be deemed reasonable in this context. Having no height limit is like having no speed limit on a highway.

Good idea, it's going all the way, maybe too far, in the right direction, except that to say NO height restrictions at all may not be entirely reasonable. There is always some reasonable regulation even in cities like New York, Montreal, Vancouver, etc. for various reasons. However, height is often determined both by the market and what is practical to build in a certain context. So, a height limit of 65, 80, or even 100 metres might be deemed reasonable in this context. Having no height limit is like no speed limit on a highway.

I understand but I dont think the market is strong enough to support a 70 story or 120 story building lol, this way it lets the market dictate it and it's in a concentrated area so no one developer can buy it ALL up and build a massive tall huge based building.

It's not a very large area. just up the road there are tonnes of ma and pa restaurants and convenience stores etc., I think it is the solution to larger developments that could have retail on the bottom floors and restaurants etc.

The thing is though its not really "just up the road". If you're an oil executive working in the Deacon building are you going to walk up to Water Street or Duckworth Street with a client to get a meal? Most likely they'd want to get a cab to go to a restaurant, this wouldn't be the case if there is a restaurant two streets over. We also don't want to create a dead zone after 5 o'clock, which is a complaint in many cities.

The thing is though its not really "just up the road". If you're an oil executive working in the Deacon building are you going to walk up to Water Street or Duckworth Street with a client to get a meal? Most likely they'd want to get a cab to go to a restaurant, this wouldn't be the case if there is a restaurant two streets over. We also don't want to create a dead zone after 5 o'clock, which is a complaint in many cities.

oh I completely agree, so one of the policies could be depending of square footage etc. there has to be X amount of retail/ restaurants available at street level

oh I completely agree, so one of the policies could be depending of square footage etc. there has to be X amount of retail/ restaurants available at street level

edit: what solution would you suggest?

I just don't think having all retail and what not only under office buildings and condos is that great. Smaller businesses would basically be forced to only rent instead of owning their own smaller buildings. Plus I doubt we have the demand to fill in this whole area with highrises. If we did fill it in there is a lot more land further west. Density isn't just about high rises.

Developers who want to build smaller buildings could be forced to construct buildings that would allow for a number of extra floors.

I just don't think having all retail and what not only under office buildings and condos is that great. Smaller businesses would basically be forced to only rent instead of owning their own smaller buildings. Plus I doubt we have the demand to fill in this whole area with highrises. If we did fill it in there is a lot more land further west. Density isn't just about high rises.

Developers who want to build smaller buildings could be forced to construct buildings that would allow for a number of extra floors.

good Idea, I'm not an urban planner lol, and it takes creativity! so if we think about what could work as oppose to only why it wouldn't work .. then we can make big changes

We don't want to discourage business in the west end by restricting development like we have in the east end.

I would like to see a ton of highrises there though, obviously.

exactly so then how do we do that?

maybe not a minimum but the infrastructure to build higher in the future.. and if a building is over a certain size they would have to have street front interaction or something along those lines. there are many cities in the world that have areas such as this, maybe we can look at how they do it.

maybe not a minimum but the infrastructure to build higher in the future.. and if a building is over a certain size they would have to have street front interaction or something along those lines. there are many cities in the world that have areas such as this, maybe we can look at how they do it.

I'd like to see restrictions gone, but I don't support saying you can't build anything under 10 stories. I do thinking saying small buildings must be able to support additional stories is something to look into, and I agree with street front interaction.

It would be great to not find it awkward to walk into a restaurant in a random office building.